Ethical Actions: Philosophers' Definitions Compared - Essay Sample

Introduction

The question as to what constitutes a good action has long been debated with no consensus. Human beings have different ways to define what the right action is. Religions have attempted to establish a good action with a bearing on God's will. Philosophers have also come up with varying definitions of ethical actions by defining virtues and ethics. Three philosophers Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, and Stuart Mill, came up with arguments of ethical actions that have been studied and compared for years. First, Aristotle defined moral actions as a mean between two extremes (Kraut, 2018). Then, Immanuel Kant also contributed by defining moral philosophy which included both goodwill, and categorical imperative (Kant, 1997). Finally, John Stuart Mill argued that the morality of actions was determined by its effect on people (Mill, 1987). Although the three philosophers have different approaches to defining a good action, they all seem to be pointing to a common perspective.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Aristotle's Perspective

Aristotle suggested that moral actions were defined by a moral virtue, which he referred to as a hexis (Kraut, 2018). The person doing the action must be in an active state and choose an action for its own sake. The action must not be selected for the good of another action but for itself. Therefore, an ethical action must be for the attainment of the highest good and not as a means to another good. However, many deeds are for the good of another action. For example, a person who is eating is doing so in response to satisfy the body's requirement, in this case, hunger. Once the need is fulfilled, the body further seeks nourishment forming a chain of needs. Thus the highest good has mostly been referred to as happiness. According to Aristotle, to achieve the highest good, it is imperative to make use of the rational ability which enables people to make moral decisions (Kraut, 2018). He further pointed out that rational ability is enhanced by developing habits that are taught and practiced.

Aristotle also uses the doctrine of the mean to define good actions. This doctrine stipulated that the right action falls between two extremes; a deficiency and an excess (Kraut, 2018). Take an example of an obese man who goes for morning runs in an attempt to lose weight. The recommended distance for the man is 3 miles per day. Running for 3 miles would constitute the right action. However, the deficiency would be running for about one mile while an excess would involve running for 5 miles. However, the mean, in this case, is not mathematical but is dependent on specific situations.

Kant's Perspective

Immanuel Kant defined moral philosophy using two elements: goodwill and the categorical imperative. Kant argued that the right actions were motivated by goodwill. In this case, goodwill referred to the unquestionable desire to fulfill duties for their own sake (Kant, 1997). Goodwill does not involve what the action will achieve, but rather the fact that the action is good in itself. For example, consider a journalist showing the plight of children in an orphanage. If the journalist lies and exaggerates the situation, the children will get more donors. According to Kant, this does not constitute an ethical action merely because of its accomplishment. This is because the action in itself was wrong and not motivated by goodwill.

The categorical imperative used by Kant is an unconditional command that guides the actions of human beings. People must, therefore, follow these commands even if they do not benefit from them. Kant made use of the formula of the universal to define categorical imperative. This formula suggested that the rule used to make a decision should become a universal law (Kant, 1997). In the example of the journalist, he was to lie to get what he wanted. Therefore the universal law would be that people would be allowed to lie if it helped them achieve their intentions. Therefore, since this cannot be a universal law, it cannot constitute a moral action. In general, Kant's definition seems to point towards the saying 'Do to others what you want them to do for you.'

Mill's Perspective

Mill had a different perspective from Kant. Mill adopted the utilitarianism perspective, which focused not on the ethical nature of the action but its effects (Mill, 1987). According to Mill, if an action brought pleasures, then it would be classified as good, but if it caused the opposite of pleasure, it would be classified as wrong (Mill, 1987). Using the example of the journalist used earlier in the paper; according to Mill's perspective, the journalist would have done a good action in lying to get the children more funds. The reason is that the action would bring pleasure to the children in the orphanage.

Mill also argued that the pleasure of the action was not only on the person doing the action but also by everyone who would be affected (Mill, 1987). This argument was in favor of social equity. Therefore, the person doing an action should not consider his pleasure but those of others who would also be affected. Ethical actions were those which resulted in happiness enjoyed by most people.

Conclusion

Aristotle, Kant, and Mill came up with different ideologies and theories to define good actions. Aristotle used the doctrine of the mean to identify a moral action which was neither deficient nor excessive. Kant had a similar perspective to Aristotle as he suggested that the right action must be prompted by goodwill, and its ethical nature would be determined by the action itself and not its consequences. Finally, Mill used the utilitarianism perspective whereby the right action was only considered so if it resulted in pleasure by the people affected by it. Despite the differences in the theories, it is clear that all the three philosophers defined a good action as one that would result in happiness or pleasure.

References

Kant, I. (1997). The Good Will and the Categorical Imperative. In M. Gregor (Ed.), Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (pp. 103-114). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Kraut, R. (2018). Aristotle's Ethics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/#VirDefConInc

Mill, J. S. (1987). Utilitarianism. New York, NY: Prometheus Books.